Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ciprian Marian Frunza

Bo Vision Danby Lodge Hotel

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A hotel worker

A hotel owner

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967

CA-00018463-001

11/04/2018

This is a case of a hotel worker, the Complainant, who was laid off from the Respondent company and who, in accordance with the lay-off terms under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967 was claiming a Redundancy payment, as is his right under the Act. The Respondent accepted that the Complainant was entitled to the payment of redundancy, in the circumstances.

The Complainant says he is seeking payment of redundancy, as is his entitlement under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 – 2014.

He says that he worked for the Respondent, in the Respondent’s hotel, performing housekeeping duties, since the 14th April 2008. On the 8th January 2018 he was laid off by the Respondent because the hotel was being closed. He said the staff were advised that the hotel would be closed for up to 6 months. The Complainant says that subsequently, after 4 weeks had elapsed made a claim to the Respondent for payment of his redundancy entitlement, but to date has not received his entitlement.

The claimant also says that his weekly pay was €420, while the Respondent on an averaging basis said that it was €359.69 on the RP50 form.

The Respondent, that is the owner, did not appear, but sent his PA/HR assistant to represent him.

This person acknowledged immediately that the Complainant and others were entitled to the Redundancy payment claimed. She said that the company did not have the resources to pay the redundancy payments due.

She says that she was asking the staff concerned, including the Complainant, to fill in RP50 forms and submit them to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection so that they would be paid their redundancy entitlements from that source. She advised the Hearing that she had been in touch with the Department and she expected that the Department would be conducting an investigation into the circumstances where the Department was being asked to pay the staff their redundancy terms as outlined above.

I asked if the business was Insolvent. She advised that it was not. It was closed while the company decided what to do with the business – to continue in business or dispose of the property.

She says that the Respondent wrote to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection on the 1st June 2018:

·         Advising of the Redundancy situation.

·         Advising of the inability to pay the redundancy entitlements

·         Including a letter from the company accountant confirming the inability to pay

·         That the staff, including the Complainant were entitled to redundancy payments

·         She was asking staff to submit their RP50 forms directly to the Department

·         She enclosed a list of those staff entitled to the redundancy payments.

At the hearing she advised that she had submitted the Complainant’s RP50 to the Department on the day before the hearing.

There is no doubt about the entitlement to the redundancy payment due to the Complainant.

This is acknowledged by the Respondent.

As this is not an insolvent company and as the Complainant is entitled to the redundancy payment claimed, under Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Act, 1967, I find that the Respondent is liable for payment of the entitlement claimed, to the Complainant. I further find that the appropriate pay rate for calculation of the Complainant’s redundancy is €420.